Feel free to discuss anything about any of the thousands of Transformer toys here. Anything from Generation 1 all the way to the soon to be released, the never to be released or the hope to be released is fair game! Want to show off your stuff? Please post your's and see others in the Transformers Collections Forum.

Well, I took the day off the boards for Easter and missed something fun.

It's hard to tell being that figure is still bagged but it looks like a nice paint scheme and a good idea.

One small beef here, though. People really have to learn to appreciate the Botcon figures for what they are. They're not going to be completely new figures mold-wise and obviously there are going to be limitations with what they can do. On the flip side, they go well out of their way to give the adult collector a little something extra that we would have never had otherwise.

It seems like every time we see a new Botcon figure people either complain about "how could they repaint that mold again?" or "that looks cool, but I'll never be able to afford it, why didn't they release it for everyone to buy?"

The fact that these figures are being made for collectors at all is something that a large portion of the fandom takes for granted and doesn't seem even close to appreciating.

datguy86 wrote:This is the second TFCC toy named after a vibrator, yes?

Delicon wrote:The fact that these figures are being made for collectors at all is something that a large portion of the fandom takes for granted and doesn't seem even close to appreciating.

That might be because a large portion of the fandom will never be able to get it, so what is there to appreciate?

And really, this would have to sell better at retail than that fugly Leo Prime. Least they could have done with him was paint him in white and gold, but blue and red? Blech.

I really believe Botcon exclusives should be reserved for novel characters, either characters created for Botcon (e.g. Landshark), or iterations of characters that would be more or less impossible to mass market (e.g. Shattered Glass). Limiting the availability of major characters like Scourge and Thundercracker to the wealthy and the irresponsible is just... grrr.

Counterpunch wrote:Just as a comment, the Transformers Fandom has a very interesting concept that gets applied across the hobby: Egalitarianism (aka: social equity for those that need to look it up)

Why is, or why should it always be 'fair and square'? Where and to what extent does that principle extend? Why don't we all get nice cars, big houses, big salaries, fancy clothes, etc?

Hmmm. I understand Caelus' point though. If you're a collector living in Europe you envy the Americans. If you live in America, you envy the Americans with the time and money for Botcon. If you're one of the Botcon guys, you envy, what, the Japanese? I'm a great believer in being happy with what you can have rather than being upset with what you can't, but I can appreciate the frustration of those who want a particular figure only to see it yanked out of the $12 range and into the potential hundreds of dollars. We wouldn't be collectors if we didn't sometimes find the limited availability of figures frustrating.

Counterpunch wrote:Just as a comment, the Transformers Fandom has a very interesting concept that gets applied across the hobby: Egalitarianism (aka: social equity for those that need to look it up)

Why is, or why should it always be 'fair and square'? Where and to what extent does that principle extend? Why don't we all get nice cars, big houses, big salaries, fancy clothes, etc?

Hmmm. I understand Caelus' point though. If you're a collector living in Europe you envy the Americans. If you live in America, you envy the Americans with the time and money for Botcon. If you're one of the Botcon guys, you envy, what, the Japanese? I'm a great believer in being happy with what you can have rather than being upset with what you can't, but I can appreciate the frustration of those who want a particular figure only to see it yanked out of the $12 range and into the potential hundreds of dollars. We wouldn't be collectors if we didn't sometimes find the limited availability of figures frustrating.

Agreed.

You and Caelus have made fairly measured responses to this, but never the less my point holds true for a certain vocal group of fans in the community.

What I am not sure of, is if those folks represent the majority or minority of fans/collectors.

Counterpunch wrote:Just as a comment, the Transformers Fandom has a very interesting concept that gets applied across the hobby: Egalitarianism (aka: social equity for those that need to look it up)

Why is, or why should it always be 'fair and square'? Where and to what extent does that principle extend? Why don't we all get nice cars, big houses, big salaries, fancy clothes, etc?

Hmmm. I understand Caelus' point though. If you're a collector living in Europe you envy the Americans. If you live in America, you envy the Americans with the time and money for Botcon. If you're one of the Botcon guys, you envy, what, the Japanese? I'm a great believer in being happy with what you can have rather than being upset with what you can't, but I can appreciate the frustration of those who want a particular figure only to see it yanked out of the $12 range and into the potential hundreds of dollars. We wouldn't be collectors if we didn't sometimes find the limited availability of figures frustrating.

Haha, you make people who go to Botcon seem like retired multimillionaries who arrive at the comvention via private jets. I've been to 2 Botcons going on 3 but that doesn't mean I simply can buy up (or even would want to buy up) anything or everything I see. And honestly, if a collector here in the US, or anywhere in the world is able to obtain something I can't that certainly doesn't make me jealous.

datguy86 wrote:This is the second TFCC toy named after a vibrator, yes?

Counterpunch wrote:Why is, or why should it always be 'fair and square'? Where and to what extent does that principle extend? Why don't we all get nice cars, big houses, big salaries, fancy clothes, etc?

Ferarri can't produce and market a car for the price of a Ford Focus.

Given the limited availability of surface area in the United States, builders can't sell houses for pennies on the dollar.

Likewise, given the finite availability of money, not everyone can have big salaries.

(No argument for "fancy" clothing, since it seems like the more expensive the clothing is the more it sucks in terms of warmth and durability. High quality outdoors clothing would be the exception, but I wouldn't call that "fancy".)

Hasbro, however, can sell characters like Thundercracker for $10-$13.

Unless the availability of blue paint has become an issue? I suppose that would explain Scourge too.

I don't see how anyone can shell out the sort of money necessary to get one of these figures and not feel like they're getting ripped off. It's a toy that has repeatedly retailed for $10, with a paint job that can't have cost any more to apply than any of the others'.

[Maybe the major car companies should learn from this - resolve their major financial woes by only offering their cheapest (lowest price-point) cars in the color blue as $80,000 limited editions.]

Think about it, since we've well established that the standard value for the mold is $10 ($13 if one accounts for the recent shift) the only added value that you're gaining with a figure like Classics Thundercracker lies in its exclusivity.

Which means either you're paying an extra $50-$70 for the name and the paint job, which should make you feel like you're being ripped off, or you're paying for the nice warm feeling of having something that other people don't get to have.

And if you're willing to pay that much (any at all) for the opportunity to get off on the knowledge that other people have been needlessly deprived of the item in question, then frankly I don't actually want to have anything to do with you. I'm sorry, but the honest truth is I find that sort of person to be... well I'm sure you can fill in the blanks. Not the sort of person I want to share space with, we'll put it that way.

But generally, I'm opposed to the idea of exclusive toys altogether. This sentiment isn't limited to characters I want. I only said that Shattered Glass & such were good candidates for such treatment b/c they wouldn't be sellable through primary distributors b/c of their unique nature, making very large scale production impractical. Of course, on the other hand, Hasbro sold Dragstrip & Overkill just fine online, available to everyone, at a modest markup (i.e. probably about enough to offset the limited production), so I don't really think that oddity/novelty-of-concept is even sufficient justification for a ridiculously high price tag. Heck, I was able to get the SDCC exclusive Nemesis Prime from Hasbro.com for only $5 over what he would have cost off the shelf at Wal-Mart. Why the difference between the SDCC exclusive and the Botcon exclusives?

Caelus wrote:Why the difference between the SDCC exclusive and the Botcon exclusives?

I'm going to disregard everything you said there because your last statement reveals that you don't really have a grasp of the production costs, numbers, or what you get for your money at BotCon.

It's economy of scale. The cost difference between the 1,100-1,500 of any given figure made for BotCon is significant even for the lower production runs of 5,000 or so for SDCC.

A small production run of shelf stock toys is around 10,000. Usual runs are 3-5x that.

Now, all that aside. I am severely disappointed in your argument for bringing up Thundercracker. You seem to be well versed in Transformers and toys. I would have a hard time believing that in the past 2 years you have not at some point or another hear the explanations from both Hasbro and Fun Publications that Classics was OVER at the time Thundercracker was designed. There weren't supposed to be ANY Thundercracker toys made. Hasbro was wrong about Classics and its success. It happens. The facts are the facts though.

Now, ranting and rolling aside, let's run with Thundercracker. The 2007 BotCon set cost $275 for FIVE figures. 1 Voyager and 4 Deluxe figures...let's split that cost up evenly and we've got exclusives at $55 a piece.

Now, if you go to the convention, that $275 includes everything...BotCon, dealer room, panels, dinner, and toys. Not everyone can go to the show, so FP did something UNPRECEDENTED for BotCon, they allow for people to order non-attending sets.

Before FP, you had to be there and if you weren't you payed secondary market prices.

BotCon and exclusives are more available to average collectors than EVER before.

And if you're willing to pay that much (any at all) for the opportunity to get off on the knowledge that other people have been needlessly deprived of the item in question, then frankly I don't actually want to have anything to do with you. I'm sorry, but the honest truth is I find that sort of person to be... well I'm sure you can fill in the blanks. Not the sort of person I want to share space with, we'll put it that way.

Needlessly deprived?

What are we dealing with here? Are we not adults who understand the differences between needs and wants?

I'd rather play to win, have the things I want, and not have to make excuses for my situation. You can try to vilify me as I enjoy my exclusive toys and the means to gather them, but honestly, I wouldn't notice...

You see, people without the necessary means to get the toys have already contacted me and I'm helping them by getting the toys that they otherwise wouldn't be able to travel for.

I guess I'm a dick, but every year I've helped out people to make sure they can either go or have access to these toys at their Convention Retail prices.

Decent points on both sides, but as a "Botconner" I'm gonna hve to side with CP. The exclusives aren't why I go to the convention. I consider them an added bonus, free toys for the (albeit high) price of admission.

Also, the definition of "exclusive" just gets looser every year. This year's Set is already up for Preorder on BBTS, which, to my knowledge, is unprecedented (otherwise, I'd have bought the 07 Set ages ago).

In short, getting the "exclusives" or hard-to-get, "rarer" figures makes me feel special. I see it as adding extra nice touches to my collection. I don't do it to gloat over those who can't get the exclusives. I've never met a TF collector who did not have at least one figure I coveted just a little, and they're rarely exclusive figures. To me, one of the joys of collecting is comparing with other collectors. Didn't get the SG Set? Come check out my collection, transform them, play with them (responsibly). It's about sharing. I love seeing other folks' collections and getting to examine figures I don't have.

Caelus wrote:Why the difference between the SDCC exclusive and the Botcon exclusives?

I'm going to disregard everything you said there because your last statement reveals that you don't really have a grasp of the production costs, numbers, or what you get for your money at BotCon.

It's economy of scale. The cost difference between the 1,100-1,500 of any given figure made for BotCon is significant even for the lower production runs of 5,000 or so for SDCC.

A small production run of shelf stock toys is around 10,000. Usual runs are 3-5x that.

Okay, ignoring the offensive tone of that response, I'll move on and point out that you didn't actually explain anything.

The price is affected by the number produced. Duh.

Why do they produce so few for Botcon compared to SDCC or simply HTS?

Now, all that aside. I am severely disappointed in your argument for bringing up Thundercracker. You seem to be well versed in Transformers and toys. I would have a hard time believing that in the past 2 years you have not at some point or another hear the explanations from both Hasbro and Fun Publications that Classics was OVER at the time Thundercracker was designed. There weren't supposed to be ANY Thundercracker toys made. Hasbro was wrong about Classics and its success. It happens. The facts are the facts though.

Frankly, I don't buy that explanation. "Hasbro said" on something like that, especially something so hard to believe, is simply not convincing. Even if they didn't plan to resume Classics (which I believe is B.S.), the fact that they didn't release Thundercracker when they were putting characters like Cliffjumper on the shelf, leads me to believe they intentionally reserved him for use as an exclusive down the road.

Now, ranting and rolling aside, let's run with Thundercracker. The 2007 BotCon set cost $275 for FIVE figures. 1 Voyager and 4 Deluxe figures...let's split that cost up evenly and we've got exclusives at $55 a piece.

$55 for a single deluxe class figure? That's obscene [see points in my previous post]. And I've yet to see Thundercracker available solo for that price, even if I was inclined to pay it.

Now, if you go to the convention, that $275 includes everything...BotCon, dealer room, panels, dinner, and toys. Not everyone can go to the show, so FP did something UNPRECEDENTED for BotCon, they allow for people to order non-attending sets.

Then what exactly is the rationale for charging people as much to get the toys as they charge people for everything else, plus the toys, if not greed?

Plus, the nonattending sets don't really resolve the crux of the problem I'm driving at - they're still limited to people who are either indulgent or foolish enough to drop nearly $300 at once on some Transformers that don't even approach warranting that price tag for any reason other than exclusivity.

BotCon and exclusives are more available to average collectors than EVER before.

So? That only reflects on the greater magnitude of the crappiness of the previous situation. It doesn't actually justify the current situation.

Needlessly deprived?

What are we dealing with here? Are we not adults who understand the differences between needs and wants?

Are we not adults who understand basic english?

Let me explain the grammar of my statement to you:

"Deprived" is a verb. It is what Hasbro did by producing far fewer of an item than what was desired.

"Needlessly" is an adverb. It describes "deprived". It means that Hasbro did not need to under-produce the items in question.

I said nothing about the toys being "needed" by the collectors as opposed to "wanted".

I'd rather play to win

Why is life automatically a competition?

In what way could it have possibly hurt you for these toys to have been available to the public for a reasonable price? Bear in mind the public includes you. Are you so determined to minimize the people who can have them that you deem it preferable to pay more, unnecessarily? Are you really the sort of person who'd cut off their own nose to spite their neighbor?

Not have to make excuses for my situation.

Excuses? You should be making excuses for buying them, not the other way around. Has it ever occurred to you what else could have been done with the extra money you forked out for those toys simply because Hasbro decided to limit their availability? Was there really nothing better you could have done with that cash?

You can try to vilify me as I enjoy my exclusive toys and the means to gather them, but honestly, I wouldn't notice...

So now we've plummeted into the part of the argument where you stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalala"?

Why Counterpunch, how could I ever possibly hope to argue with some one whose skills as a debater are so cunning, so mature?

You see, people without the necessary means to get the toys have already contacted me and I'm helping them by getting the toys that they otherwise wouldn't be able to travel for.

Wow! You're selling them for $13 to people who've gotten shafted by the economy? People who have common sense with regards to how they spend their money? I take it all back, you're a saint!

I guess I'm a dick, but every year I've helped out people to make sure they can either go or have access to these toys at their Convention Retail prices.

You still don't get it, do you? My argument is that the convention retail prices are b***s***.

Still, thank you for turning this discussion into an opportunity to paint me as a poor, petty, irresponsible, immature welfare case because I don't believe artificially created exclusivity and rarity are justifications for paying five times what a toy is worth.

My day, which started with people insulting me, was in dire threat of not ending the same way, and where would I be without the symmetry?

Thank god Counterpunch was there in a pinch to turn this discussion of economic philosophy (already off-topic from the original news-item) into a directed, personal attack!

And to think I wondered why I stopped coming here for so long...

------------------------------------------------------------

Edit:

And for the record, those who want to be able to measure my response against my current situation, to decide for themselves whether I am biased in this matter and simply "making excuses for myself":

My wife has a bachelor's degree in Chemical Engineering, and three semesters of graduate school under her belt. She lost her funding in the same way that family and friends of ours have lost their jobs during this recession. If she could get a job, she'd be making between $50K and $60K per year starting out, but due to the economy, there are no jobs to be had. I have faith that won't continue to be the case forever though, and when she finally does have a job again, we'd have plenty of money to go to Botcon.

In fact, long ago she promised me that if they ever had it somewhere interesting we would. I decided some time ago though that I didn't have any interest in indulging Hasbro, so I have no intention of going when the money becomes available.

For my part, I have two bachelors degrees and am attending grad school. When I eventually get my doctorate, assuming I can find a tenure-track position, I can expect to get paid between $35K and $40K per year. Slightly more than half what she will get paid, for somewhere around ten to twelve years of hardcore, higher education. On that pay check, I could maybe afford to treat myself with a guilt-free trip to Botcon. If my loans magically pay themselves off.

Now, the counterpoint I would wholly expect to hear is:

"But you two have worked hard to get where you are, you deserve to throw away money on frivolous things".

I used to think so too. That used to be my motivation for getting such an education.

A couple of summers ago though, I had to make ends meet between relocation to our current residence. I wound up stuck in a minimum wage job trying to scrape together enough money to pay for my first month's rent up here in Colorado, since no one else was hiring in the middle of Summer.

That job was the hardest, most exhausting work I've ever done, including my current one. It broke body and spirit, and the pay was crap.

I was the youngest person working that job. Everyone else was old enough to be my father, or my grandfather. At least one of them was a veteran.

And they were all working as hard as I was, and working second jobs.

Hardwork and success aren't the perfect correlation most Americans seem to think.

People who don't have the money to spend on ridiculous things aren't necessarily lazy. They aren't necessarily stupid. They aren't necessarily in any way less deserving of the finer things in life than those above them on the economic ladder.

So that's why it pisses me off so much when people imply that those who can't afford the ridiculous prices for this crap are just making excuses for their own shortcomings.

Caelus wrote:Why the difference between the SDCC exclusive and the Botcon exclusives?

I'm going to disregard everything you said there because your last statement reveals that you don't really have a grasp of the production costs, numbers, or what you get for your money at BotCon.

It's economy of scale. The cost difference between the 1,100-1,500 of any given figure made for BotCon is significant even for the lower production runs of 5,000 or so for SDCC.

A small production run of shelf stock toys is around 10,000. Usual runs are 3-5x that.

Okay, ignoring the offensive tone of that response, I'll move on and point out that you didn't actually explain anything.

The price is affected by the number produced. Duh.

Why do they produce so few for Botcon compared to SDCC or simply HTS?

Now, all that aside. I am severely disappointed in your argument for bringing up Thundercracker. You seem to be well versed in Transformers and toys. I would have a hard time believing that in the past 2 years you have not at some point or another hear the explanations from both Hasbro and Fun Publications that Classics was OVER at the time Thundercracker was designed. There weren't supposed to be ANY Thundercracker toys made. Hasbro was wrong about Classics and its success. It happens. The facts are the facts though.

Frankly, I don't buy that explanation. "Hasbro said" on something like that, especially something so hard to believe, is simply not convincing. Even if they didn't plan to resume Classics (which I believe is B.S.), the fact that they didn't release Thundercracker when they were putting characters like Cliffjumper on the shelf, leads me to believe they intentionally reserved him for use as an exclusive down the road.

Now, ranting and rolling aside, let's run with Thundercracker. The 2007 BotCon set cost $275 for FIVE figures. 1 Voyager and 4 Deluxe figures...let's split that cost up evenly and we've got exclusives at $55 a piece.

$55 for a single deluxe class figure? That's obscene [see points in my previous post]. And I've yet to see Thundercracker available solo for that price, even if I was inclined to pay it.

Now, if you go to the convention, that $275 includes everything...BotCon, dealer room, panels, dinner, and toys. Not everyone can go to the show, so FP did something UNPRECEDENTED for BotCon, they allow for people to order non-attending sets.

Then what exactly is the rationale for charging people as much to get the toys as they charge people for everything else, plus the toys, if not greed?

Plus, the nonattending sets don't really resolve the crux of the problem I'm driving at - they're still limited to people who are either indulgent or foolish enough to drop nearly $300 at once on some Transformers that don't even approach warranting that price tag for any reason other than exclusivity.

BotCon and exclusives are more available to average collectors than EVER before.

So? That only reflects on the greater magnitude of the crappiness of the previous situation. It doesn't actually justify the current situation.

Needlessly deprived?

What are we dealing with here? Are we not adults who understand the differences between needs and wants?

Are we not adults who understand basic english?

Let me explain the grammar of my statement to you:

"Deprived" is a verb. It is what Hasbro did by producing far fewer of an item than what was desired.

"Needlessly" is an adverb. It describes "deprived". It means that Hasbro did not need to under-produce the items in question.

I said nothing about the toys being "needed" by the collectors as opposed to "wanted".

I'd rather play to win

Why is life automatically a competition?

In what way could it have possibly hurt you for these toys to have been available to the public for a reasonable price? Bear in mind the public includes you. Are you so determined to minimize the people who can have them that you deem it preferable to pay more, unnecessarily? Are you really the sort of person who'd cut off their own nose to spite their neighbor?

Not have to make excuses for my situation.

Excuses? You should be making excuses for buying them, not the other way around. Has it ever occurred to you what else could have been done with the extra money you forked out for those toys simply because Hasbro decided to limit their availability? Was there really nothing better you could have done with that cash?

You can try to vilify me as I enjoy my exclusive toys and the means to gather them, but honestly, I wouldn't notice...

So now we've plummeted into the part of the argument where you stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalala"?

Why Counterpunch, how could I ever possibly hope to argue with some one whose skills as a debater are so cunning, so mature?

You see, people without the necessary means to get the toys have already contacted me and I'm helping them by getting the toys that they otherwise wouldn't be able to travel for.

Wow! You're selling them for $13 to people who've gotten shafted by the economy? People who have common sense with regards to how they spend their money? I take it all back, you're a saint!

I guess I'm a dick, but every year I've helped out people to make sure they can either go or have access to these toys at their Convention Retail prices.

You still don't get it, do you? My argument is that the convention retail prices are b***s***.

Still, thank you for turning this discussion into an opportunity to paint me as a poor, petty, irresponsible, immature welfare case because I don't believe artificially created exclusivity and rarity are justifications for paying five times what a toy is worth.

My day, which started with people insulting me, was in dire threat of not ending the same way, and where would I be without the symmetry?

Thank god Counterpunch was there in a pinch to turn this discussion of economic philosophy (already off-topic from the original news-item) into a directed, personal attack!

And to think I wondered why I stopped coming here for so long...

------------------------------------------------------------

Edit:

And for the record, those who want to be able to measure my response against my current situation, to decide for themselves whether I am biased in this matter and simply "making excuses for myself":

My wife has a bachelor's degree in Chemical Engineering, and three semesters of graduate school under her belt. She lost her funding in the same way that family and friends of ours have lost their jobs during this recession. If she could get a job, she'd be making between $50K and $60K per year starting out, but due to the economy, there are no jobs to be had. I have faith that won't continue to be the case forever though, and when she finally does have a job again, we'd have plenty of money to go to Botcon.

In fact, long ago she promised me that if they ever had it somewhere interesting we would. I decided some time ago though that I didn't have any interest in indulging Hasbro, so I have no intention of going when the money becomes available.

For my part, I have two bachelors degrees and am attending grad school. When I eventually get my doctorate, assuming I can find a tenure-track position, I can expect to get paid between $35K and $40K per year. Slightly more than half what she will get paid, for somewhere around ten to twelve years of hardcore, higher education. On that pay check, I could maybe afford to treat myself with a guilt-free trip to Botcon. If my loans magically pay themselves off.

Now, the counterpoint I would wholly expect to hear is:

"But you two have worked hard to get where you are, you deserve to throw away money on frivolous things".

I used to think so too. That used to be my motivation for getting such an education.

A couple of summers ago though, I had to make ends meet between relocation to our current residence. I wound up stuck in a minimum wage job trying to scrape together enough money to pay for my first month's rent up here in Colorado, since no one else was hiring in the middle of Summer.

That job was the hardest, most exhausting work I've ever done, including my current one. It broke body and spirit, and the pay was crap.

I was the youngest person working that job. Everyone else was old enough to be my father, or my grandfather. At least one of them was a veteran.

And they were all working as hard as I was, and working second jobs.

Hardwork and success aren't the perfect correlation most Americans seem to think.

People who don't have the money to spend on ridiculous things aren't necessarily lazy. They aren't necessarily stupid. They aren't necessarily in any way less deserving of the finer things in life than those above them on the economic ladder.

So that's why it pisses me off so much when people imply that those who can't afford the ridiculous prices for this crap are just making excuses for their own shortcomings.

Dude! That was FIVE pages in a Word document.

In summary:

-You don't like exclusives-You don't like Counterpunch-You are smarter than Counterpunch (and probably more charming)-The economy sucks-Counterpunch is an **** who wastes money and thinks he's smarter than he is-The American dream is dead

I don't think I insulted you in my post. I flat out said that I don't think you know what you're talking about in terms of BotCon/exclusives, but I don't think I said anything bad about Caelus, the man, myth, and legend.

Diem wrote:Caelus, can I ask an honest question? There's no subtext or double meaning to this one:

Would you prefer Thundercracker being a BotCon exclusive, or Thundercracker not having been produced?

If he hadn't been produced, it would leave the possibility, actually the virtual certainty, that he still could/would be produced, as a mass release.

If there was some reason to think otherwise, then it would be hypocritical of me to say I wish he hadn't been made, and cut everyone out of the opportunity, but with the twice now success of the Classics line I don't see why one would think that.

Counterpunch wrote:I don't think I insulted you in my post. I flat out said that I don't think you know what you're talking about in terms of BotCon/exclusives, but I don't think I said anything bad about Caelus, the man, myth, and legend.

I don't see how you can not be aware of the aggressive and demeaning tone of your response, which both implied that I was immature and that I, and anyone else opposed to exclusives, are simply making excuses for our own inadequacy. Oh, and all with a little gloating added on top.

In summary:-You don't like exclusives

Correct. Though removed from the context of my reasons for disliking exclusives, that statement isn't quite as meaningful.

-You don't like Counterpunch

I didn't used to have an opinion one-way-or-the-other, but given your attitude in this thread I'm certainly leaning that direction.

-You are smarter than Counterpunch (and probably more charming)

I hope you don't intend to mollify me with flattery? Or was that sarcasm? Being in an online format, you need to be much clearer about these sorts of things.

-The economy sucks

Indeed.

-Counterpunch is an **** who wastes money and thinks he's smarter than he is

To sig-quote or not to sig-quote?

-The American dream is dead

Oh, the "dream" may be alive and well, but it's a dream. The term itself implies fantasy, a detachment from reality. Fiction. The American Hallucination might be a better term actually.

Over the years I've come to believe that the American dream is essentially an opiate for population control.

Is upward social mobility easier in the U.S. than in some places, historically? Almost certainly, but given the examples one could come up with, that wouldn't be hard. Regardless of how much better life is here than in Feudal Europe, the fact remains that we don't really live in a completely equal-opportunity society. Regardless of how much effort you put in, you're still limited by where you come from, who you are, and what sort of random chance events happen to you.

Furthermore, the rabid adherence to and promotion of the Protestant Work Ethic that goes hand in hand with the American Hallucination serves as a hierarchy-reinforcing system that amplifies the already universal social problem of attribution error or correspondence bias.

Attribution-error/correspondence-bias may not seem like a big, dramatic problems, but when you 'add it up' across the population, and becomes an incredibly significant source of trouble. Hell, it's been a cornerstone of discrimination not only in America but everywhere else on Earth. Any system which includes, at least to some extent, discrimination by one group against another, is maintained in part by attribution-error/correspondence-bias.

Honestly, I'm a white male who grew up in a 'nice' neighborhood. I have no illusions about the fact that if I had been a different race, or even gender, or had grown up on the other side of town, the odds would be against my being where I am now, even if I invested as much work, overall, as I have.

Hell, even if I got to a point where I had a good education and everything else I need to be successful, I'd still wind up being paid less if I were a woman or a black man.

So in short, no, I don't believe in the American Dream.

America is far from fair in its distribution of opportunity, which is why I think it's all the more important that to make things fair when it actually possible. Therefore, I see no reason why Hasbro should be turning our hobby into a competition for status and self-esteem maintenance. This is something that we should all be able to do something we should all come into feeling like we're equals. Institutions like the collector's club, and practices like unnecessary underproduction of resources like exclusives, are ham handed attempts to impose the same inequity that pervades the rest of society on this one thing that might otherwise be an escape from such a dismal reality.